How to Pick a Mate (1946)

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/67472/67472-h/67472-h.htm

by rzk • 3 years ago

81 152 3 years ago

Quinzel2• 3 years ago

This made me laugh a lot. Thank you for sharing.

drno123• 3 years ago

Interestingly that today we laugh at the fact that there is a book helping people how to make one of the most important decisions in their life. It is normal to have books about how to cook food, how to travel, how to exercise. But God forbid there should be a book on how to select a good marriage partner.

langitbiru• 3 years ago

Because picking a good marriage partner is ableist. That's why it's controversial.

For example, people prefer good looking people as marriage partners. That makes people who are not good looking sad. And you can imagine for other traits like income, age, height, social status.

Veraticus21• 3 years ago

Wait, isn't there still a huge industry of self-help books focused on relationships and romance?

vorpalhex2• 3 years ago

No no, you'll just see someone and realize through sight alone they are your _true love_. Fate will have happened.

Or you'll hookup with someone and then through a rom com series of mishaps end up falling in love accidentally!

Remember, you can't choose to love someone. You are a powerless pawn. You need fate or the stars or an accident to fall in love.

I'm being grumpy but we've developed a weird cultural learned helplessness when it comes to relationships. We're so afraid to be seen as judging other people most folks can't even seem to directly take action.

Xeoncross• 3 years ago

There are still other people who don’t marry because they lack a decent opportunity. Girls who choose nursing as a career, for example, cut their marriage prospects at least fifty per cent. It is much the same for librarians and social workers. In fact a girl can reduce her chances of marriage merely by going to a girls’ college.

you have been warned /s

lukas0993• 3 years ago

You don't think this is true?

revscat• 3 years ago

Judging by how you feel it necessary to even ask such a ridiculous question, I strongly doubt you would accept any answer but that which supports your anachronistic views.

irrational2• 3 years ago

Well, I did meet my wife in college. If she had gone to a girls’ college (which I assume means girls-only, do they even still have those?) then I wouldn’t have met her. Frankly, that probably would not have reduced her chances of marriage, but I think it would have reduced mine ;-)

jedberg3• 3 years ago

Wellesley College is a well known women's only college. Hillary Clinton went there, and it's still women only today (although they have partnerships with nearby schools like Harvard and MIT and Boston College for the women to take classes there if they want (and experience classes with mixed genders)).

They also have planned social activities with those nearby mixed gender colleges.

(My friend went there and told me all of this, and I assume it's still the case even though it's been 25 years :) ).

nme01• 3 years ago

There’s nothing controversial about it. Usually people get to know other people at university or at work. To meet someone outside of your everyday environment requires extra effort. I know it from my own experience as well (trying to find a girlfriend while studying CS).

triceratops• 3 years ago

It's just as true for the opposite sex. Just that there aren't really any men-only colleges.

bell-cot• 3 years ago

Back in the day, there certainly were plenty of men-only colleges. Or close enough.

The US Navy Academy first admitted a woman in 1976.

science4sail2• 3 years ago

How Is Your Job Affecting Your Prospects? People tend to marry mates who live conveniently near and who have similar interests. (About a fifth of all married couples meet each other at work.) A school teacher, for example, is much more likely to know school teachers of the opposite sex than to know physicians of the opposite sex. Yet many occupations are such that far more of one sex enter them than is true of the other. For example, there are normally nearly five women teachers to one man teacher; seven or eight feminine librarians to one male librarian; some twenty-five or thirty women in nursing to each man in somewhat similar work. Is it any wonder that the rate of marriage among school teachers, librarians and among nurses is much lower than average? Girls who choose[31] nursing for a career cut their marriage prospects by at least 50 percent.

Sounds like engineering

DaveExeter• 3 years ago

"Your chances of getting a mate you will like are even affected by your sex. If you are a girl your chances are not as good as if you were a man. This is largely due to the fact that a girl cannot gracefully take the initiative in stalking a mate who looks attractive to her."

Ladies, stalking a man does work, sometimes.

alexpotato2• 3 years ago

The whole "he wouldn't stop calling me/stopping by my work etc till we went on a date and now we've been married 40+ years" was apparently a LOT more common back in the mid 20th century.

Hard to imagine that happening today.

HeyLaughingBoy3• 3 years ago

No, not really. There's a difference between persistence and stalking. Sometimes a very fine line, depending on the personalities involved. The reality is that some people enjoy being pursued, but often their signals can be subtle or misunderstood.

If it's been suggested or hinted at that you should stop (or outright told, "quit bugging me"), then continuing is stalking. You'd think everyone would understand that but evidently that's not the case.

Scubabear682• 3 years ago

There obvious historical issues with this book that make it hard to apply to today, but I was still surprised at how well written this was for it’s time.

This also shows the importance of birth control in women’s lives. In 1946, sex was a roll of the dice to being pregnant. The odds are now massively improved to avoid pregnancy by using modern birth control methods.

alexpotato2• 3 years ago

but I was still surprised at how well written this was for it’s time.

I've read several books written by soldiers who fought in WW1 and the Boer War.

It's fascinating to read a book written 100+ years ago that is easy to read, informative and witty all at the same time.

Sure, there are some things that are hard to understand b/c they don't exist anymore (E.g. "the crates were packed with excelsior") but overall they've been very interesting.

op00to• 3 years ago

Marriage would be so much more straightforward if many of the lessons that we had to learn anyway were presented up front. It’s too bad that so many pre-marriage “courses” are religious in nature.

solardev2• 3 years ago

Totally this. I wish schools taught relationship dynamics, family issues, basic finance, etc. rather than useless maths and archaic grammar. I never learned that stuff from my parents and spent decades learning it the hard way.

mighmi• 3 years ago

how well written this was for it’s time

This is the first time I've encountered the sentiment that things have become better written in the last 3-6 generations. Are you really surprised that a book from 1946 would be well written? I´d love to glean an idea of your views on this to widen my own views.

Scubabear682• 3 years ago

I only meant that specifically in regards to this topic, “finding a mate”. The era was fairly repressive on the topic and so many euphemisms and religious over tones to everything. This was refreshingly straight forward.

tarboreus4• 3 years ago

You figure people were just bad writers back then? If anything, I'd say they were better writers, though probably only marginally. Read a couple scientific papers from 1945 and you'll more than likely actually enjoy yourself, for example. There's a kind of frankness to a lot of mid-century writing that a lot of cutesy modern writing lacks.

jackblemming• 3 years ago

Nine Dangerous Characters is unironically good advice. But people of course love to look for “sexist” snippets instead, so they can laugh at people of past, as if they would have been any better.

dxbydt• 3 years ago

Amazingly well written. I found myself vigorously agreeing with several strong statements therein...I guess its because I'm an immigrant from a conservative culture and this is kinda how we think about these things. Very cut and dry, doesn't waste time hemming & hawing. Gets to the point. Just to be safe, I downloaded this book. I'm pretty sure we won't see this freely hosted online a decade from now, given the current cultural mores.

thrtythreeforty• 3 years ago

pretty sure we won't see this freely hosted online a decade from now

Eh, regardless of cultural mores, I think you'll still be able to find it on sites like Gutenberg whose explicit goal is to preserve public domain works.

I agree that it is very cut and dry, and I miss that tone in more modern nonfiction literature - this tone is present in many genres from the WWII era; even technical manuals for old radios read very conversationally yet tersely.

bookofjoe2• 3 years ago

Co-author Vance O. Packard's 1957 book "The Hidden Persuaders" was a best-seller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard

mihaic• 3 years ago

Thank you for the link. His output seems to be remarkably perenial and valid today, the kind that's usually done by a profound observer that has all the information but that can also see things through the eyes of an outsider.

bookofjoe2• 3 years ago

Free PDF: https://archive.org/download/the-hidden-persuaders-vance-pac...

coding123• 3 years ago

I thought this was interesting:

    People Who Should Not Marry at All

    Qualifications for Marriage   Percentage Voting for Them
    Freedom from venereal disease  100%
    Freedom from feeble-mindedness
    (If sterilized, 24% would permit marriage)  99%
    Freedom from insanity  97%
    Freedom from criminality  94%
    Freedom from dipsomania  91%
    Freedom from drug addiction  85%
    Freedom from neuroticism  76%
    Proof by groom that he can support bride
    (This includes evidence of occupational proficiency
    and at least $150 in savings)  69%
    Record of no more than one divorce, if any  50%

igotstandards• 3 years ago

Reminds me of: https://igotstandardsbro.com/

Similarly: https://realitycalc.com/

mock-possum• 3 years ago

According to that first one I only had a 4% chance of meeting my boyfriend, so that’s interesting. 4% actually seems pretty doable regardless, not sure I really deserve the ‘cat lady’ rating - go on a hundred dates, and you should at least run across a few solid possibilities.

matheusmoreira14• 3 years ago

$150 USD/1946 is about $2,340 USD/2023. Interesting.

aaronscott• 3 years ago

I was curious for a summary of what the book suggested. Here is Kagi’s summarizer:

- Emotional maturity and stability are key traits for a happy marriage. People who are well-adjusted, have good self-confidence, and can handle problems well tend to have more successful marriages.

- Communication and companionship are vital for a happy marriage. Couples need to develop a strong bond through sharing interests, aspirations, and conversations.

- Compatibility and similar traits between partners promote marital happiness. Couples who have similar personalities, backgrounds, and interests tend to get along better.

- Sexual satisfaction and intimacy are important for a fulfilling marriage. Couples need to develop a good sexual relationship and intimacy to avoid infidelity and build closeness.

- Mutual understanding, trust, and respect are crucial for a lasting marriage. Partners need to be considerate of each other's needs, supportive, and willing to compromise.

- Shared goals and values help strengthen a marriage. Couples who have common life goals and moral values tend to be more content in their relationships.

- Financial stability and compatibility aid marital happiness. Couples who manage their finances well and agree on spending habits tend to have fewer conflicts.

- Physical and mental health issues can strain a marriage. Conditions like addiction, mental illness, and disabilities require effort and understanding from both partners.

- Similar family backgrounds promote marital success. Children of happily married parents tend to have more successful marriages themselves.

- Premarital counseling can help resolve issues before marriage. Seeking advice from professionals and discussing expectations can prepare couples for the challenges of married life.

Aachen2• 3 years ago

Non-native speaker here. Is there a ranking to "key", "vital", "crucial", and "important", or should I read these as being equivalently important? I'm taking the latter as lesser than the former three, though that also depends on what Kagi is I suppose.

ethanbond• 3 years ago

Interesting question! I think I’d agree with your ranking. Maybe important < key < [crucial or vital]

But this strikes me more as a question of author’s emphasis rather than a ranking of the actual factors in reality?

bobobar339• 3 years ago

1. Vital, Crucial 2. Key, Important

chongli3• 3 years ago

They’re all roughly interchangeable. Reusing adjectives in English writing is generally avoided. This may be why we have so many redundant ones!

jjoonathan• 3 years ago

Yes, "important" is slightly lesser than "key," "vital," and "crucial," but not by a large enough margin that I would confidently infer intent beyond cycling through synonyms to keep the prose interesting.

solardev2• 3 years ago

They are not strictly defined/quantified, especially when a summarizer is producing them

Minor49er• 3 years ago

I would suggest plugging words that you are curious about into a thesaurus, then looking up the definitions of each of the entries that you find in a dictionary to further your understanding

miahwilde• 3 years ago

- "Vital" and "crucial" both indicate a required element.

- "Key" and "important" both indicate notable elements.

- "Key" can also be used to indicate a required element, i.e. "keystone", however it is not always used in this way.

- "Key" can also be used to indicate "there is only one" though it is not always used in this way.

When "key" is meant as "singular & required & notable" it probably carries the most weight of all these words. However, since it is not always used in that way, I personally tend to give it less weight.

In casual use I would order them like this (strongest to weakest): crucial, vital, key, important.

In formal use I would order them like this (strongest to weakest): key, vital, crucial, important.

My favorite thesaurus, ChatGPT, agrees with my casual use ranking. https://chat.openai.com/share/10bb8195-c7cd-4c0c-935f-f5b4c3...

Brighthurst• 3 years ago

As a pedantic native speaker, I'd like to describe the different interpretations I have for these words. Hopefully this explanation illustrates the differences in a more useful way to you than simple ordering. I am not saying that this is exactly what the summary meant for these words, I'm just adding more context:

- Important: Describes that something has high priority, in a general sense. Very broad. Can replace any of the other terms, but is less precise.

- Key: Important in a utilitarian sense. Just like a literal key, using "key" here implies that something is an essential part of a solution to a problem/issue.

- Vital: Important in an ongoing sense. Think of "vitality"," the capacity to live, grow, or develop. We should use "vital" when we mean something is important to do as a habit, to maintain the strength of something.

- Crucial: Another term that is general. Basically "important" but with higher priority. It implies that there is some urgency, gravity, or necessity to whatever is crucial or the matter to which whatever is crucial.

drewcoo2• 3 years ago

Mostly, they're used interchangeably by native speakers.

I recommend searching the original text to see how they're used in context.

key - not used in the text

important - seems to be used when comparing things: more important or less important

vital and crucial - used in the text, both of them seeming to indicate the highest priority

charles_f• 3 years ago

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Any indication per whether this is data based or just "common sense driven"?

judge202010• 3 years ago

They sometimes cite data.

One German study showed that the fewest divorces were in marriages between Jews and that the largest number of divorces occurred when a Catholic married a non-Catholic. In Maryland, twelve thousand young people were asked the religious affiliations of their parents and also asked if their parents were living together, divorced or separated. Here were the percentage of broken marriages found in different groupings:

  When both parents Jewish 4.6%
  When both parents Catholic 6.4%
  When both parents Protestant 6.8%
  When religions mixed 15.2%

Also in "People Who Should Not Marry at All"

Also

While, as you notice, these fiancées felt extremely reluctant to marry a man who had lost his sexual potency, only a small proportion (16%) would refuse to marry an ex-soldier who had become sterile.

But the main text is written with their own opinions and observations.

xethos• 3 years ago

More than ten per cent of the eligible men today won’t marry, but that will largely be due to the fact that they prefer to remain bachelors.

I'm sure that's the full story on why they won't marry, 1940's era author ;)

Aachen2• 3 years ago

Not sure what this is getting at

readthenotes1• 3 years ago

Gay marriage wasn't legal back then

wafflemaker• 3 years ago

Men who choose men over women, like Alan Turing, Freddie Mercury, George Michael

flir• 3 years ago

I think that might be what the 1940s author is saying. (See: "confirmed bachelor")

science4sail2• 3 years ago

Yeah, they definitely allude to it: "Other young people—both male and female—were separated so long from contact with the opposite sex that they developed—or feared they had developed—unnatural feelings toward members of the same sex; or thought they lost the knack of making themselves seem attractive to girls or men, whichever the opposite may be."

RedShift12• 3 years ago

Lol, pick :'). I have to stop at the title because I don't even get to the part where I get to pick :').

Jeff_Brown2• 3 years ago

Search does come first. Someone would be happy to have you, I'm almost sure. And if not, well, you know what to work on.

I thought I was unworthy for a long time, and basically invested in myself until my 40s. Then when I started looking in earnest, I got married scary fast.

RedShift12• 3 years ago

Where do you look? Inside my friend circle there's nobody (all married or in a relationship), Tinder is a bust (I don't even remember when my last match was). I used to attend some Linux clubs but even if they are available they are so defensive about a man coming over to chat that the best thing I can muster is saying how good the cola is... Nobody at workplace either...

wnolens2• 3 years ago

Skimmed through a few sections, can't help but compare it to "The Game" with marriage as the goal instead of pickup/sex. But treats it like a game all the same, and treats women like pawns in that game.

Veraticus21• 3 years ago

Unfortunately this was probably pretty close to reality for most women in the timeframe that this author was writing this in.

judge202010• 3 years ago

Yes, given the author says this:

A basic argument for marriage is that it offers a logical division of labor. Imagine how much more complicated and inconvenient life would be if men had to do their own cooking and sewing, and women—all women—had to compete with men for a livelihood!

Of course, since '46 capitalism has demanded women enter the workforce to compete with men and drive down wages.

DirkH• 3 years ago

Possible difference is "The Game" actually ends as a warning to those who just see it as a games and doesn't skimp on the emotional turmoil men go through that refuse to stop tying their self-worth with how much they get laid.

Dunno if this book does the same where at the end it does a 180 and shows you how damaging it can be to tie one's self-worth to getting married.

sandworm1013• 3 years ago

> By marrying, a man becomes a better employment risk. Married men usually are regarded as more steady, more trustworthy employees than single men. This is logical. Marriage exerts a stabilizing influence on most men.

Oh wow has that changed. Kids and families = time away from the office. Marriage is also the leading cause of divorce, which tends to reduce productivity across a few years, especially if child custody is an issue. And, contrary to past working conditions where promotions were steady, a married person with a young family is now probably more likely to jump ship for a better job at higher pay rather that wait out a decade for in-house promotions.

warmwaffles2• 3 years ago

Marriage is also the leading cause of divorce

Did you mean to say children instead of Marriage? You can't have divorce without marriage.

sandworm1013• 3 years ago

It's an old joke. It is also a statement illustrating a type of logical absurdity. I had a tax professor once rave at a student because her answer to "how to reduce your client's tax burden" was to have the client quit their job and have no income. "Having money is the leading cause of paying taxes!"

ble• 3 years ago

Interesting. What personal experiences or survey data are you drawing on for these conclusions? All of what you say sounds like solid, believable inferences but I doubt most people are exposed to enough data about the interaction of family life and work to draw meaningful generalizations. (If you turn out to be a professor of quantitative sociology, my face will be bright red :) ).

sandworm1013• 3 years ago

I am not a sociologist, but I do have a number of subordinates. I have people with domestic violence issues, people who cannot work late due to child custody handover times and even restraining orders between divorcing partners who both work at the same company. The single people seem to be more stable, the confirmed bachelors even more so.

mejutoco• 3 years ago

Counterexample: politicians show their wife/husband to show stability.

ForestCritter3• 3 years ago

Marriage is the leading cause of divorce?....without marriage, there is no divorce.

ddalex• 3 years ago

And I hoped this is about chess end games.

ankaAr• 3 years ago

As Argentinian I should tag this as clickbait

ricc• 3 years ago

I seriously thought this was about finding a friend- or buddy-for-life...

sacnoradhq• 3 years ago

The most optimal situation to pick a mate is during college, undergrad or grad school. This other institution has been eroding because of the lack of men going to college and excessive tuition costs, i.e., debt, for all reducing the net economic incentive that it once was.

The questions they must eventually answer in the affirmative are:

1. Do you trust them implicitly with your life and everything else?

2. Are you better with them than apart?

The irreducible problem is: very few people today can or would meet this standard. There aren't that many good, decent, mature, reliable people who are also available and mutually attracted. There are millions of cowardly narcissists working on their sun tans, personal brands, and increasing numbers of people they've slept with without knowing anything about them because they're too afraid to have emotional courage.

How to Pick a Mate (1946)

Related Stories